Confirmed with Link: Tatar Re-Signs (4 years, $5.3 million)

[rx7dryver]

Folks thing this is a good deal? What I read is that Kenny gave them what they were asking in arbitration. In arbitration the team tries to lowball them and the player tries to get more than he is worth. Kenny was like I'll take it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV-M69LLn5s

 

[Ezekial]

Folks thing this is a good deal? What I read is that Kenny gave them what they were asking in arbitration. In arbitration the team tries to lowball them and the player tries to get more than he is worth. Kenny was like I'll take it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV-M69LLn5s

Arbitration was for 1 year of RFA salary, he locked him up for 3 UFA years.

 

[Inspiration]

Reports from the beat writers were that Tatar was expected to between $4.7M and $4.8M on a one year deal in arbitration. Assuming that is true, it means that the Red Wings essentially valued Tatar's UFA years at about $5.5M per year ($4.7 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 = $21.2M total contract value).

 

[Vatican Roulette]

Reports from the beat writers were that Tatar was expected to between $4.7M and $4.8M on a one year deal in arbitration. Assuming that is true, it means that the Red Wings essentially valued Tatar's UFA years at about $5.5M per year ($4.7 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 = $21.2M total contract value).

Link?

Just so I can read it.

 

[Inspiration]

Link?

Just so I can read it.

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/n.../red-wings-tomas-tatar-arbitration/494995001/

Custance also mentions this in an article on The Athletic (if you are a subscriber). Custance says it was expected to be between $4.75M to $5.0M, so the UFA years were valued between $5.4M and $5.5M.

Given how often we hear about teams buying up UFA years, this deal presents an opportunity to get a glimpse of how teams and players value RFA years (with arbitration rights) vs UFA years.

 

[Henkka]

Reports from the beat writers were that Tatar was expected to between $4.7M and $4.8M on a one year deal in arbitration. Assuming that is true, it means that the Red Wings essentially valued Tatar's UFA years at about $5.5M per year ($4.7 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 5.5 = $21.2M total contract value).

Kind of same jump as there was on Nyqiust's contract.

Gus had a raising average of 250k per year.

But jump from RFA to UFA years was 1.0M - 250k = 750k.

They wanted to front-load Tatar's contract a bit with the signing bonus etc. That first year base salary gives him more than 1-year from arbitrator.

 

[theD86]

I actually agree with this........... http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sp...pa-puck-management-next-step-tatar/103945352/

 

[njx9]

What a monumentally moronic contract. Completely unsurprising, given the idiocy that already was the Daley contract, and given the utter mismanagement of this team in every conceivable way recently. Putrid management.

 

[Henkka]

What a monumentally moronic contract. Completely unsurprising, given the idiocy that already was the Daley contract, and given the utter mismanagement of this team in every conceivable way recently. Putrid management.

What should have done with those contracts?

Just sign nobody?

 

[njx9]

What should have done with those contracts?

Just sign nobody?

You sure as **** shouldn't be signing anyone for term. Tatar will never be a part of a winning team in Detroit. There's absolutely no good reason to bring him back for 4 years. Daley is a worthless piece that could've been replaced by "50" 1 year UFAs every single off-season.

My dog has more hockey management sense.

 

[Frk It]

What a monumentally moronic contract. Completely unsurprising, given the idiocy that already was the Daley contract, and given the utter mismanagement of this team in every conceivable way recently. Putrid management.

Why do you feel that way? I'd say it was reasonable. Not a sweetheart deal, but not an albatross.

You sure as **** shouldn't be signing anyone for term. Tatar will never be a part of a winning team in Detroit. There's absolutely no good reason to bring him back for 4 years. Daley is a worthless piece that could've been replaced by "50" 1 year UFAs every single off-season.

My dog has more hockey management sense.

He is one of the best trade assets on this team. Fans like watching him play. There were more reasons to sign him than not sign him.

 

[njx9]

Why do you feel that way? I'd say it was reasonable. Not a sweetheart deal, but not an albatross.

Is Tatar worth that kind of contract? Sure. This isn't like Abbie who, as a player, had no business getting that deal, and it's not like Nielsen who I don't think was even slightly worth the contract we gave him.

Does this contract help the team in any way? No. Not now and not in 4 years. Tatar should've been traded last year, and he certainly should've been traded this year. Bringing him back for four years, on a team he will never contribute to in a meaningful way, is moronic.

He is one of the best trade assets on this team. Fans like watching him play. There were more reasons to sign him than not sign him.

You think he'll actually get traded with this new contract in place? That would be surprisingly un-Holland. Further, do you think the fans would rather watch Tatar, or see a vaguely competitive team in the next decade? There are still no rational reasons for re-signing him long term.

 

[Henkka]

Is Tatar worth that kind of contract? Sure. This isn't like Abbie who, as a player, had no business getting that deal, and it's not like Nielsen who I don't think was even slightly worth the contract we gave him.

Does this contract help the team in any way? No. Not now and not in 4 years. Tatar should've been traded last year, and he certainly should've been traded this year. Bringing him back for four years, on a team he will never contribute to in a meaningful way, is moronic.

There will be reasons, and he will traded on the last year of the contract (that bonus structure is pretty obvious for that). That's how his value is transferred to future assets.

Tatar could have been traded at last season, but maybe there wasn't a reasonable market this time. We were all hoping for Vatanen, but Anaheim decided to keep him, went after older 1-season wonder Eaves and who knows if our right-handed kid defencemen could equal Vatman very soon. Multiple factors.

You think he'll actually get traded with this new contract in place? That would be surprisingly un-Holland. Further, do you think the fans would rather watch Tatar, or see a vaguely competitive team in the next decade? There are still no rational reasons for re-signing him long term

This "un-Hollanding" is just you living on the past. Kenny is already selling people, but also HIRING FREE ASSETS. So he can sell more other people. And the circle will go around-and-around. Formerly bought, even older UFA is a free asset, and will be sold later on the contract and new signed in. At same time as we rebuild. Hoards picks and free agents. Sell free agents for picks. Repeat, repeat and repeat.

Then we will have prospect goldmine, which will turn to a contender, when those best and highest-drafted prospects will hit on their prime.

***

Normal Ken Holland was losing draft picks for veterans on almost every trade he made.

So far, he hasn't done that kind of trade for over 2 years. Latest was a 3rd rounder for Zidlicky, on 2nd March, 2015.

Since that trade, it has been an opposite direction, draft picks coming in for rentals/veterans/Jurcoes. Sadowy trade was kind of an exeption, a 3rd for a young player.

So this un-Hollandin has been already going on for 2 years and you guys just refuse seeing it. Whining with blind eyes.

 

[njx9]

There will be reasons, and he will traded on the last year of the contract (that bonus structure is pretty obvious for that). That's how his value is transferred to future assets.

What leads you to believe that the team would trade him then? The number of other quality players that've been traded?

Tatar could have been traded at last season, but maybe there wasn't a reasonable market this time. We were all hoping for Vatanen, but Anaheim decided to keep him, went after older 1-season wonder Eaves and who knows if our right-handed kid defencemen could equal Vatman very soon. Multiple factors.

Then, given that he'll likely spend another season regressing under one of the worst development coaches in the NHL, why would his trade value ever create a 'reasonable market'? That said, and while I don't think anyone should be given away just to be given away, any value he'd return is likely more value than he actually represents to the team.

This "un-Hollanding" is just you living on the past. Kenny is already selling people, but also HIRING FREE ASSETS. So he can sell more other people. And the circle will go around-and-around. Formerly bought free asset will be sold and new signed in. At same time as we rebuild. Hoards picks and free agents. Sell free agents for picks. Repeat, repeat and repeat.

Then we will have prospect goldmine, which will turn to a contender, when those best and highest-drafted prospects will hit on their prime.

Horse crap. Daley is not a free asset. And I have no idea why you think it will allow him to sell other people, when Las Vegas made it clear what the league thinks of the value of those 'other people'.

"Prospect goldmine" is similarly laughable, for a team that has managed to spend 20 years without a single elite prospect in the pipeline. More likely, the team will continue to be a bottom-6/middle-pairing goldmine. Especially when idiotically resigning guys like Tatar keep the team from ever actually hitting the basement and getting those top end players. I guess you'll at least be able to hope for a Philadelphia every lottery.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

I am no Holland love child but this deal isn't a bad one or a mistake

Rip helms or Abbys or Nielsens or dekeyser or Ericsson's all you want but this is good value and good term for an actually relatively skilled hockey player

 

[Frk It]

You think he'll actually get traded with this new contract in place? That would be surprisingly un-Holland. Further, do you think the fans would rather watch Tatar, or see a vaguely competitive team in the next decade? There are still no rational reasons for re-signing him long term.

I don't see why one would exclude the other. Quite frankly, Tomas tatar isn't that good to where I would worry about it.

I'd like to believe Holland will pull off a creative/bold trade eventually. If not, all the more reason to move on from him. I'd think Tatar has more value as a player under contract long term then he would as a rental, unless his game completely nosedives, which I doubt very much it will from now until he is 30.

Would you have done a 1 year deal... not signed him at all... what was your desired outcome here?

 

[Henkka]

What leads you to believe that the team would trade him then? The number of other quality players that've been traded?

Salary structure is built for selling. Lower salary on last year, makes him easier to fit on contenders, especially if you rentent 50%. Daley contract has exactly same structure. They are preparing for selling.

Horse crap. Daley is not a free asset. And I have no idea why you think it will allow him to sell other people, when Las Vegas made it clear what the league thinks of the value of those 'other people'.

Free asset is free asset. Didn't cost any draft picks.

Defenceman market was totally different for UFAs than after Las Vegas signed a too big market for themselves. There was too much supply and less need. Prices went down.

When Mike Green will be sold at next deadline, the need will be huge and almost no supply. Except Green. It will be a nice day to be a salesman.

"Prospect goldmine" is similarly laughable, for a team that has managed to spend 20 years without a single elite prospect in the pipeline. More likely, the team will continue to be a bottom-6/middle-pairing goldmine. Especially when idiotically resigning guys like Tatar keep the team from ever actually hitting the basement and getting those top end players. I guess you'll at least be able to hope for a Philadelphia every lottery.

Prospect goldmine will be there after 4-5 years. Just book it.

 

[njx9]

I don't see why one would exclude the other. Quite frankly, Tomas tatar isn't that good to where I would worry about it.

I'd like to believe Holland will pull off a creative/bold trade eventually. If not, all the more reason to move on from him. I'd think Tatar has more value as a player under contract long term then he would as a rental, unless his game completely nosedives, which I doubt very much it will from now until he is 30.

Would you have done a 1 year deal... not signed him at all... what was your desired outcome here?

I'd have taken the 1 year arbitration 'deal' and then moved him at some point before the TDL. Maybe Tatar has more value on a long term deal (though I find it hard to believe that this deal is really good enough for that to be true), but that was even more incentive to move him last year (I know, it's in the past and isn't really relevant anymore).

All that said, he's a 25 goal/45 point player. Either that's good enough for him to give the team a few extra points it doesn't need, or it's not and he really doesn't have much trade value.

Really, the issue for me is this - he does nothing good for the team, and potentially contributes a lot of negative value (in terms of the rebuilding effort). As such, he represents another multi-year deal given to a player who's not going to be here when the team is good again, but is now less likely to be traded, or less tradeable. But hey, at least we've locked up yet another winger.

Just more status quo for a mediocre team, from a mediocre GM with no improvement plan in sight.

 

[njx9]

Salary structure is built for selling. Lower salary on last year, makes him easier to fit on contenders, especially if you rentent 50%. Daley contract has exactly same structure. They are preparing for selling.

Daley would need an actual buyer, and that *still* goes against the vast majority of Holland's time as GM. I don't buy for a second that Tatar will ever be traded, or wear a different colored uniform.

Free asset is free asset. Didn't cost any draft picks.

No, just 4 years of term and salary. I don't think you know what 'free' means.

Defenceman market was totally different for UFAs than after Las Vegas signed a too big market for themselves. There was too much supply and less need. Prices went down.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Our forwards are, largely, devoid of value. No one wants Helm. No one, by your own statement, will give us anything for Tatar. The team is full of bottom pairing d-men, and the team is about to waive one rather than get any value for any of them. You're badly overrating the value of the players in this franchise.

When Mike Green will be sold at next deadline, the need will be huge and almost no supply. Except Green. It will be a nice day to be a salesman.

Yup, *one* player of value. And it's because, surprise, he actually has talent. Unlike Daley.

Prospect goldmine will be there after 4-5 years. Just book it.

Only after you show me your crystal ball.

 

[Frk It]

Really, the issue for me is this - he does nothing good for the team, and potentially contributes a lot of negative value (in terms of the rebuilding effort). As such, he represents another multi-year deal given to a player who's not going to be here when the team is good again, but is now less likely to be traded, or less tradeable. But hey, at least we've locked up yet another winger..

I'm struggling to understand how you are coming to this conclusion.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I'm struggling to understand how you are coming to this conclusion.

Because if he remotely contributes to us winning a hockey game, he puts us further away from getting a top 3 pick.

Or... he plays terrible and we're wasting 5.3M in cap space on him.

Those are the two ideas I think njx is driving at.

I think #1 is too hardline. It's "scorched earth" thinking. If you're not providing me with a 10% better chance at a talented 18 year old, you're not worth my time. It's the same as that nonsense topic about us trading Nyquist for a third round pick or literally whatever scraps we can get for him because "we're not going to be any good with him here". Trading away players for that reason is a perfect way to ensure that your team sucks for a very long time. Trade them for actual value, not "just because we won't be any good during the term of their deal."

I agree with #2, but I don't think Tatar will play that poorly that 5.3M is beyond the pale for what he does provide.

And the whole thing with Tatar and Daley's contracts is that they are written to be amenable to trades. Whether or not they will follow through on trades is irrelevant. The contracts themselves are written in a way that is helpful if you did want to move them.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

This team needs a scorched Earth. It's why giving Tatar a long term deal makes no sense. The contract itself isn't bad in terms of value, but it's a bad contract since the entire roster is a dumpster fire. People need to realize that there is no silver lining when it comes to the current roster. It's the equivalent of a body on life support where the family refuses to pull the plug while they wait for the miracle that will never come.

Holland didn't sign Tatar or Daley because he was thinking 3-4 years from now. He signed them because he wants to make the playoffs. By this point, it should be very apparent to everyone that Holland has no long term vision.

 

[Flowah]

Tatar doesn't help us tank. But unlike many of the other contracts Holland has signed, Tatar is actually a good player with good term and a fair price. He's eminently tradable unless he just craters somehow which is extremely unlikely given how consistently he's produced throughout his career.

If Holland doesn't trade him, that's one thing. But this contract itself is fine.

 

[Henkka]

Tatar doesn't help us tank. But unlike many of the other contracts Holland has signed, Tatar is actually a good player with good term and a fair price. He's eminently tradable unless he just craters somehow which is extremely unlikely given how consistently he's produced throughout his career.

If Holland doesn't trade him, that's one thing. But this contract itself is fine.

Yep.

With Tatar we are not any worse or better for tanking. Still bottom5 team with or without him, and you can't secure a Generational player with or without him. Those days are gone. Lottery changed everything.

Tatar has future trade value, after the season's when we have drafted a new core, and when he is still on his prime. Then we turn his former value of a successful draft pick for a future value, which will match with the new core.

These are basic timing things with roster building.

 

[Flowah]

I mean... we're clearly a worse team without him. The only reason this contract makes sense is because it's actually a decent contract for a good player which I hope we trade at some point.